The Action Appraisal System is the cognitive engine that translates an agent’s inner world into a decision. When an agent must choose a course of action, this system models the process not as a simple cost-benefit analysis, but as a dynamic Internal Debate between the competing facets of its Psyche.

This system is the core of an agent’s apparent rationality and personality. For the player, the Subjective Interface provides a direct, visible window into this internal process, transforming the black box of AI decision-making into a rich and compelling role-playing experience.

The Philosophy: A Parliament of the Soul

A choice is not a single, rational conclusion. It is the emergent result of a negotiation between the many parts of a self. An agent’s soul is a parliament, and every significant action must be put to a vote.

The Action Appraisal System is the chamber where this parliament convenes. The Psychic Components are the delegates, each arguing from a biased perspective shaped by its Archetype and Valence. The final decision reflects which voice shouted the loudest, which argument was most persuasive, and which core tenet of the self won the day.

The Mechanics of the Internal Debate

The Internal Debate is the formal model for how all sapient agents appraise their potential actions.

1. The Trigger: A Moment of Choice The system activates when an agent’s cognitive loop enters the ‘Appraise’ phase. It takes a list of PotentialActions generated to address the CurrentActiveGoalFocus and evaluates each one.

2. The Participants: The Voices of the Psyche Each of the Incarnation’s Psychic Components, along with its core Beliefs, acts as a participant in the debate. A component’s relevance to the current situation determines if its “voice” will contribute to the appraisal.

3. The Arguments: Weighted Appraisal Criteria The “arguments” are the classic appraisal criteria (risk, benefit, cost) framed as subjective, biased opinions. Each component contributes a weighted score based on the aspect of the choice that matters most to it.

Illustrative Example: Appraising the [Attack the Traitor] Action

• A Psychic Component { Archetype:[justice], Valence:+0.9 } argues for Moral Alignment:

  This component contributes a strong positive weight. Its logic is: “This action aligns with a core principle.”

• A Psychic Component { Archetype:[violence], Valence:-0.8 } (born from trauma) argues for Risk to Safety:

  This component contributes a strong negative weight. Its logic is: “This action is associated with past trauma and should be avoided.”

• A Psychic Component { Archetype:[logic], Valence:+0.7 } argues for Likelihood of Success:

  This component contributes a moderate negative weight based on a tactical analysis of the situation. Its logic is: “This action is inefficient and has a low probability of success.”

4. The Resolution: The Weight of Conviction The debate is resolved by weighing the arguments. The Strength of each Psychic Component’s attunement acts as a multiplier for its argument’s score. A high-strength component’s opinion matters more than a weak one. The final “Total Appraisal Score” is the sum of these weighted arguments, and the agent commits to the action with the highest score.

The Player’s Experience

The Subjective Interface visualizes this internal process for the player. When contemplating a choice, the UI comes alive with the arguments of the soul. The player sees the logical analysis clash with the fearful warnings and zealous urgings of their character’s mind. This allows the player to understand why their character is predisposed to a certain action, turning every choice into a negotiation with the self.